Barrett v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Barrett v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co.

44 N.Y. 872

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 31, 1978·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. We agree that the Appellate Division was not bound by its earlier determination, as the law of the case, because of the additional and persuasive evidence on the second trial. On the merits we find that the defendant was entitled to a directed [874]*874verdict for the reasons stated in the Per Curiam opinion at the Appellate Division (58 AD2d 320; see, also, Process Plants Corp. v Beneficial Nat. Life Ins. Co., 42 NY2d 928, affg 53 AD2d 214).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. We agree that the Appellate Division was not bound by its earlier determination, as the law of the case, because of the additional and persuasive evidence on the second trial. On the merits we find that the defendant was entitled to a directed [874]*874verdict for the reasons stated in the Per Curiam opinion at the Appellate Division (58 AD2d 320; see, also, Process Plants Corp. v Beneficial Nat. Life Ins. Co., 42 NY2d 928, affg 53 AD2d 214).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Barrett v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co., 44 N.Y. 872 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

44 N.Y. 872 (Barrett v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related